1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Hackney, Code 19, Invalid voucher - EV bay, Cazenove Road N16
« on: January 27, 2026, 04:41:12 pm »
Thanks stamfordman for looking at this.
I understand it might not invalidate the PCN itself, but doesn't it demonstrate failure to properly consider my representations under the 2007 Regulations?
My informal challenge specifically stated:
- I held a valid Zone T visitor voucher book
- I was entitled to park in that Zone T bay
- I provided photographic evidence of the voucher book
Their rejection letter says:
- "parking in bay for... Zone F permit holders only"
- "no valid permit... nor displayed at the time"
The enforcement photos clearly show the sign says Zone T.
So they rejected my challenge claiming I needed Zone F when:
1. The actual bay requires Zone T
2. I told them I held Zone T voucher
3. I provided evidence of Zone T voucher
Can they just argue this was a "typo" at Notice to Owner stage and correct it then? Or does the fact they got the zone wrong in their formal rejection show they never actually reviewed what I submitted?
It looks like they just used a template rejection, rather than addressing my specific claim about holding the correct Zone T permit for that Zone T bay.
Does this support a procedural/statutory duty breach ground, or am I overestimating how significant the Zone F/T error is?
Thanks.
I understand it might not invalidate the PCN itself, but doesn't it demonstrate failure to properly consider my representations under the 2007 Regulations?
My informal challenge specifically stated:
- I held a valid Zone T visitor voucher book
- I was entitled to park in that Zone T bay
- I provided photographic evidence of the voucher book
Their rejection letter says:
- "parking in bay for... Zone F permit holders only"
- "no valid permit... nor displayed at the time"
The enforcement photos clearly show the sign says Zone T.
So they rejected my challenge claiming I needed Zone F when:
1. The actual bay requires Zone T
2. I told them I held Zone T voucher
3. I provided evidence of Zone T voucher
Can they just argue this was a "typo" at Notice to Owner stage and correct it then? Or does the fact they got the zone wrong in their formal rejection show they never actually reviewed what I submitted?
It looks like they just used a template rejection, rather than addressing my specific claim about holding the correct Zone T permit for that Zone T bay.
Does this support a procedural/statutory duty breach ground, or am I overestimating how significant the Zone F/T error is?
Thanks.










